NEWSLETTER -- Number 5, September 30, 2004

The Portable Craig Westover

LATEST COLUMN -- PLAINS, TRAINS AND FORGED MEMOS
Just when I find out where it’s at, somebody goes and moves it. After pestering my way into a regular column slot at a mainstream media outlet, “Rathergate” has made “blogging” all the rage. I take a look at what that may mean for the business-side of the mainstream media in this week’s Pioneer Press column.

From the column -- In a classic example of marketing myopia, [ Theodore] Levitt describes how railroads, operating with a product focus, dismissed the airplane as an innovation to be embraced. They disastrously perceived themselves in the narrow "railroad" business, not the broader "transportation" business and consumers didn't necessarily need railroads — they needed transportation.

Already faced with a significantly functioning blogosphere, are there network executives, newspaper publishers and station managers asking themselves, "What business are we in?" Are they coming up with answers other than "television news," "newspaper publication" and "radio programming?" Have they considered the "information" business and what that recognition might mean for their relationship to bloggers, the Internet and their customers?

Welcome to the blogosphere --

On a personal note, I’ve set up a blog site at www.craigwestover.blogspot.com. This site is repository for my columns appearing on the Opinion Page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Ultimately it will grow to include discussions with readers of my columns and other ramblings. It’s also your portal to prick my consciousness with your own thoughts on subjects that ought to receive a wider view.

I hope you‘ll visit from time-to-time.

SECONDHAND SMOKE COLUMN DRAWS FIRE

Just a few days after my column “Smoking ban is properly local issue” appeared in the Pioneer Press, state representative Jim Rhodes and Marc Manley, director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota’s center for tobacco reduction and health improvement were taking potshots at my argument that secondhand smoke is a personal and not a “public” health issue requiring government intervention.

The two ask the question, “When is a substance that annually kills tens of thousands of innocent bystanders not a public health threat?” Unfortunately, rather than address the three criteria for public intervention I detailed in my column, they choose to answer their own question with innuendo about “political spin” and a selective reading of what I wrote.

Links to their exceptions and my rebuttal on my blog site www.craigwestover.blogspot.com

FEEDBACK ENCOURAGED

Thanks for reading and whether you agree or disagree, your feedback is appreciated and encouraged. So are gripes and issues that you feel aren’t being addressed by local media -- just keep it civil.

Email to westover4@yahoo.com, or if you’re so inclined, drop an email to the Pioneer Press and express you own opinion (letters@pioneerpress.com). Even if your letter isn’t published, it makes an impression.

This newsletter is solely the product of the author and is not associated with any media outlet.

Government snacking on taxpayers once again

In my column "Government obesity can be prevented" I wrote with what I thought was hyperbole --

When it's one's own money being consumed for health care, not the government's, not the employer's and not the neighbor's, one is less likely to drive to the doctor for a Jenny Craig prescription and more likely to eat well and exercise.

But I guess you can't make it up fast enough. From today's New York Times:

At a meeting in November, Medicare's advisers will assess the safety, efficacy and cost of one increasingly popular method of weight loss - surgery - as a first step in a new policy that could lead to the use of federal money to cover a range of other obesity treatments.

At the moment, Medicare will pay for surgery for obesity when patients suffer other problems associated the condition, like diabetes. Now, Medicare says it may decide to cover treatment for those who are simply obese, meaning their body mass index, a measure of body fat, is at least 30.

The immediate question is whether to cover so-called bariatric surgery, which costs $30,000 to $40,000 if there are no complications, and greatly reduces how much food can be consumed and the calories that can be absorbed. But commercial diet programs as well as many obesity doctors, including members of the American Obesity Association, whose sponsors include makers of weight loss drugs as well as companies like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, say they want coverage for other programs, too.

The obesity association said that it planned to use Medicare as a wedge to open the door for broader coverage for the obese and then, possibly, for overweight Americans.

And they are laying the ground work. Consider this from the AOA website:

Obesity is not a simple condition of eating too much. It is now recognized that obesity is a serious, chronic disease. No human condition — not race, religion, gender, ethnicity or disease state — compares to obesity in prevalence and prejudice, mortality and morbidity, sickness and stigma.

As I note in my column, deciding whether or not a "widespread" health concern is a "public" health/government intervention issue is a matter of objective criteria, not an emotional appeal to pity and sympathy. As I wrote:

Here's some food for thought — a simmering widespread health concern, like obesity, is not automatically a "public health" problem that will boil over unless government puts a lid on it.

Main course "public health" is government activity that protects citizens from risks to which they have not consented — dangers posed to the community at large, dangers from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves. The legitimate menu of public health includes ensuring clean air and water, maintaining adequate sanitation and controlling contagious diseases. . . .

Thus the limited portion government that produced such spectacular fare as eradicating killer diseases has been supplanted by an "all-you-can-eat" smorgasbord of behavior modifying communications and regulatory programs that equate a Big Mac and a 64-ounce "Bladder Buster" with the Ebola virus.

Obesity is not caused by polluted air, dirty water or inadequate sanitation. It is not contagious. No individual person's obesity reduces any other person's health. Individual health is not public property or public responsibility.

I suppose the silver lining in this billowing cloud of an increased nanny state is that once taxpayers start footing the bill for diet programs, there won't be enough discrestionary income left to supersize a fast food meal.

Read the column . . . .

What liberal bias?

I don’t have a lot of interest in the debate over whether or not the mainstream media has a liberal bias. It’s kind of like debating whether or not the winter is cold in Minnesota. But just as there are sometimes unseasonably warm days in January, occasionally a journalist caught up in his cleverness leaves a liberal out in the cold.

That’s what happened to Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Writing in Tuesday’s Pioneer Press, Bill Salisbury leads his article on her St. Paul visit noting that the usually outspoken Heinz Kerry did not speak to reporters, “who were not allowed to ask questions during her 45-minute visit." He then follows with this paragraph --

"Perhaps her campaign handlers wanted to make sure the usually outspoken and opinionated multimillionaire philanthropist didn't spark another controversy, as she did when she told a conservative newspaper editorial writer to "shove it" or when she told a newspaper that "only an idiot" wouldn't support her husband's health care plan. "Of course, there are idiots," she added."

Not being a “journalist” by the standards of Nick Coleman and David Broder, I can’t make a positive judgment, but the word “perhaps” that begins that paragraph just might be a tad speculative for an “objective” news story, eh?

And you know what, that’s not all that bad. A political beat writer for the Pioneer Press, Salisbury ought to have the insight to make those kinds of speculations. And when he does, he’s providing a service to readers of the Pioneer Press. He’s letting us in on something we might otherwise not be privy to.

It’s the individual reader’s responsibility to test what he reads against his own knowledge and biases.

The point (which is lost on Nick Coleman) is that journalists and bloggers both have biases that we bring to stories. “Objectivity” is not writing without bias. An “objective journalist” is one that subjects his bias to the facts he’s presented with and looks for the truth, not some homogenized “balance” that is neither true nor false.

A “hack” is a writer that ignores the facts in favor of bias -- for example, ignoring the power of the blogosphere to alert the news media, to source experts, to consolidate knowledge from diverse sources and ultimately to accelerate the news cycle, just because he found a blogger speculating on the size of the president’s penis.

Bottom line -- Salisbury did readers a service by putting his knowledge into the story. Maybe tomorrow he’ll take a shot at one of my guys, but he’s earned that right, too. Just as I’ve earned the right to challenge his conclusions.

Read "Planes, trans and forges memos"

Excerpt:

In a classic example of marketing myopia, Levitt describes how railroads, operating with a product focus, dismissed the airplane as an innovation to be embraced. They disastrously perceived themselves in the narrow "railroad" business, not the broader "transportation" business and consumers didn't necessarily need railroads — they needed transportation.

Already faced with a significantly functioning blogosphere, are there network executives, newspaper publishers and station managers asking themselves, "What business are we in?" Are they coming up with answers other than "television news," "newspaper publication" and "radio programming?" Have they considered the "information" business and what that recognition might mean for their relationship to bloggers, the Internet and their customers?

Political harassment

A column reader sent me a copy of an e-mail being circulated by his manager at work.

The Bush administration is planning on drafting our daughters into the military!! It is imperative that the citizens of this country understand what is planned before the fall election. Please read the following information. If you agree that this action is not in the best interest of this country, please pass this information to everyone you know AND PLEASE EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER.

Attached is a copy of an e-mail circulating the Internet claiming that “the administration is quietly tying” to pass legislation to reiterate the draft after the presidential election. In part, according to the e-mail --

"If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the Canada [sic] which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay within it's [sic] borders. This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those that are currently active.”

There is a bill currently in the House is HR 163, which is referenced in the memo, but as noted on the factcheck.org website, the bill’s sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.

Over at Power Line, is this statement from the Selective Service System website:

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

Kudos to our reader for pointing out to his manager that the rhetoric for reinitiating a draft is coming from the left. And an added nice touch was telling him that his job duties didn’t allow him time to research political e-mails at work. Besides that’s not what he’s paid to do.
He also notes, quite correctly, that “It is totally wrong for a manager to use his political influence over his workers.”

Now I’m the last to call for muzzling informal discussion in the workplace, but a manager circulating an e-mail to his direct reports isn’t discussion. It’s a form of harassment not all that different from the sexual thou-shalt-nots in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In legislative/lawyer speak --

It’s an unwelcome advance wherein submission or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance and creates an intimidating hostile or offensive work environment.

Let’s just say, what’s good for a "goose" is good for this slander.

COLUMN -- Planes, trains and forged memos

Pioneer Press
Sep. 29, 2004

Many have commented on the infamous CBS report on President Bush's National Guard service, both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere — that diverse Internet community "open to anyone with a modem and some opinions." None mentioned Theodore Levitt.

Levitt authored the classic Harvard Business Review article "Marketing Myopia," which challenged organizations with the question "What business are you in?" He contended that by maintaining a myopic focus on products rather than customers, a business risked losing growth opportunities and ultimately obsolescence.

So what has a marketing wonk got to do with an overzealous CBS News anchor, a blogger "sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing what he thinks" and you and I getting the daily news? As much as two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, had to do with the demise of American railroads — a lot.

The story links to the story, behind the story, of CBS and some forged memos.

Before heading off to work the morning of Sept. 9, Minneapolis attorney/blogger Scott Johnson, co-founder with fellow attorney John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com, checked the site's e-mail, one of which suggested the documents used by CBS to discredit the president's National Guard service might be forgeries. Proportional spacing and other typography characteristics in the CBS documents, according to the e-mail, weren't possible on a 1970s-era typewriter.

Johnson, looking for Power Line readers who could support or negate the e-mail's charge, posted the information. Over the next several hours, Power Line received hundreds of responses — not all of them valuable by Hinderaker's account — but many showing "remarkable knowledge of military protocol of the early 1970s, type fonts and typewriters and so on."

Throughout the day, as evidence mounted that the CBS documents were fakes, Johnson and Hinderaker updated Power Line. Other bloggers linked to the Power Line posts adding their own analysis and the expertise of their readers. The Drudge Report posted a link to the Power Line site exposing thousands more to the story.

The mainstream media latched on to the story, investigated and ultimately sanctioned what the blogosphere had already confirmed — the CBS documents were fakes.

The blogosphere has received grudging credit for the speed at which the CBS story broke, but most mainstream media reaction has been of the "yes, but" variety — Yes, bloggers uncovered a significant story, BUT that doesn't make them "journalists."

Mainstream media don't concede what bloggers do is "journalism" — evidence former CBS executive Jonathan Klein's "pajama" comment. Typical is columnist David Broder's lament that "the Internet has opened the door to scores of 'journalists' who [have] no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering."

Which brings us back to "Marketing Myopia."

While the journalism side of mainstream media licks its wounds and snarls rationalizations at the undisciplined rabble storming the Bastille of its self-proclaimed credibility, one wonders what the business side is thinking.

Unlike blogs, which are labors of love, not booming commercial ventures, the mainstream media must make money. Blogs have a single customer — readers. Mainstream media must satisfy consumers who purchase "news" in whatever form best meets their needs and advertisers who purchase those consumers. Neither group has inherent loyalty to a specific product — a broadcast or a newspaper. They have only needs.

In a classic example of marketing myopia, Levitt describes how railroads, operating with a product focus, dismissed the airplane as an innovation to be embraced. They disastrously perceived themselves in the narrow "railroad" business, not the broader "transportation" business and consumers didn't necessarily need railroads — they needed transportation.

Already faced with a significantly functioning blogosphere, are there network executives, newspaper publishers and station managers asking themselves, "What business are we in?" Are they coming up with answers other than "television news," "newspaper publication" and "radio programming?" Have they considered the "information" business and what that recognition might mean for their relationship to bloggers, the Internet and their customers?

The winds of "Hurricane Dan" are already blowing themselves out to the relief of all stressed out "real" journalists. But for media executives (and not just at CBS), now comes the tough construction task, not just rebuilding lost credibility, but creating new models of information businesses.

UPDATE: In today's Start Tribune, Nick Coleman takes off on bloggers --

"Do bloggers have the credentials of real journalists? No. Bloggers are hobby hacks, the Internet version of the sad loners who used to listen to police radios in their bachelor apartments and think they were involved in the world."

Unfortunately, Coleman misses the point in his effort to be clever instead of wise.

UPDATE: The blogosphere does a reality check. Some nice words from Fraters Libertas.

Secondhand smoke column draws fire.

In today’s Pioneer Press, responding to my argument that secondhand smoke is a personal and not a “public” health issue requiring government intervention, state representative Jim Rhodes and Marc Manley, director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota’s center for tobacco reduction and health improvement ask the question, “When is a substance that annually kills tens of thousands of innocent bystanders not a public health threat?”

Unfortunately, rather than address the three criteria for public intervention I detailed in my column, they choose to answer their own question with innuendo about “political spin” and a selective reading of what I wrote.

They state my claim is that secondhand smoke is not a “public” health issue because “no one is forced to patronize or seek employment at a smoking establishment.” That’s very true, but it is only one of three criteria for defining a “public” health hazard versus a widespread individual health concern. The relevant section of my column, which they conveniently ignore makes the complete case.

Yes, smoking and secondhand smoke pose a health threat. A wayward whiff of secondhand smoke is no reason to go "Chicken Little," and statistics attributing death and illness to secondhand smoke proceed more from political agenda than scientific rigor, but it's tough to deny that a room engulfed in the blue haze
of cigarette smoke is not hazardous to a person's health.

Nonetheless, a bar and restaurant smoking ban, statewide or local, doesn't pass the test of a public health problem requiring government intervention. Public health/government intervention is at issue only when people are exposed to risks to which they have not consented and which pose dangers to the community at large from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves.

No one is forced to patronize or seek employment at a smoking establishment. Diseases caused by cigarette smoke are not contagious, so there's no risk to the community. It's easy for individuals to protect themselves from the danger of secondhand smoke — don't patronize or seek employment at smoking establishments.

Rhodes and Manley go onto cite examples of longstanding laws pertaining to restaurants that they claim my position would invalidate. To the contrary, if they apply the objective criteria, they would see the criteria support those regulations.

Take the case of regulations pertaining to food safety. First criterion -- they protect patrons from risks to which they did not consent. When a person goes into a restaurant they do not consent to eat bad food. Second criterion -- food borne disease affects the community at large. All food-serving establishments are equally susceptible. Third -- individual restaurant patrons cannot reasonably protect themselves from bad restaurant food. Short of squirming maggots, there’s no way to tell if the food being served is safe or not.

Rhodes’s and Manley’s second argument is more germane, but still not on point. Government should NOT “turn a blind eye toward workplaces full of radioactive waste, asbestos, fire hazards and other dangers.” Again, revert to objective criteria.

First criterion -- dangers such as those cited by Rhodes and Manley pose risks that individuals do not consent to. In the case of radioactive waste, it’s invisible as are asbestos fibers. A person can be exposed without being aware. Fire hazards extend beyond one person’s property to another’s. Second criterion -- all three of these dangers effect society at large -- a nuclear accident, the once-widespread use of asbestos insulation (even in public buildings) and an out-of-control fire. Third criterion -- an individual can’t protect himself from a risk he can’t see or reasonably anticipate. Regulation is legitimate.

Contrast with secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant. First criterion -- a person knows upon entering an establishment of the risk and chooses whether or not to accept it. Second criterion -- the impact is only on those people that by choice are on private property where smoking is allowed, not the community at large. Third criterion -- an individual can reasonably protect herself by not patronizing smoking establishments.

No doubt Rhodes and Manley have a genuine concern for people’s health. However, they should also have a healthy respect for private property rights and an interest in criteria for public intervention as opposed to arbitrary government action that, more often than not, reflects the real “political spin” of robbing the few to benefit the many.

BAC Legislation not Comparable to Smoking Bans

In response to my recent column suggesting that if local municipalities are going to pass smoking ban ordinances, they should reimburse bars and restaurants that are damaged by such laws just as they must do when property is taking via eminent domain, a critic of my position made the comparison between smoking ordinances and the recent lowing of the legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) for operating a motor vehicle to .08.

Do taxpayers have an obligation to compensate the establishments for the revenue they might lose as the result of a smoking ban, no. Recently, the state passed a lower BAC limit of .08. This is an effective law which research has shown prevents many alcohol-related deaths and injuries and will save the state millions of dollars. Because of the law, people will drink more responsibly, i.e. less. This means the bars/restaurants will sell fewer drinks and will see a reduction in revenue. Given the overwhelming gain for all of society, including the bar/restaurant owners, I just don’t believe you could argue there is an obligation on the part of the taxpayers to make up for the lost revenues.

Although I disagree with the .08 BAC legislation because I don’t believe it’s effective (and I view it as the federal government blackmailing the states to do something the federal government has no constitutional authority to do itself), I certainly don’t question the legislation’s legitimacy. The state can go as far as a BAC of ZERO and need not concern itself with reimbursing anyone.

Here’s the difference between the BAC legislation and a smoking ban.

The BAC legislation may “impact” the liquor industry, but it does not “target” the liquor industry. (All laws impact someone) It does not take from the industry any right that it previously had. Nor does it take away any individual right. An individual does not have the right to drink anywhere he damn well pleases and endanger others. Smoking bans target specific businesses. They take away a property right that the business previously had. And while individuals do not have a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please (I don’t oppose smoking bans in legitimate public buildings), they do have that right on private property with the consent of the owners.

Further, let’s apply criteria for public intervention to the BAC legislation. First, the legislation (assuming it's effective) protects citizens from a risk to which they did not consent -- driving on roads with people too intoxicated to handle an automobile. Second, drunk driving affects the community at large. There are no posted “Drinking” and “Non-Drinking” roads. A drunk driver might be found on any Minnesota road. Third, There is no reasonable way I can protect myself from drunk drivers other than choose not to drive or walk near roads. (No, that’s not the same as not being able to go to a specific restaurant or type of restaurant or bar.) A person cannot reasonably function without driving or utilizing roads.

And finally, the public is paying for the benefit of a lower BAC through extra tax dollars spent for enforcement and conviction of violators. There are no “free riders.” Smoking ban proponents, on the other hand, feel they can inflict economic damage on one group of people without themselves paying for the expected benefit.

The “overwhelming gain” to society has nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is due because society is taking away a right from an individual. That is not the case with the BAC legislation; it is with the smoking ban. That’s the bottom line that smoking ban proponents won’t address.

FILE CABINET -- Column Archive

COLUMN -- Before state tries to safeguard public health, it must define it @ 4/06/05

COLUMN -- Accountability clause isn't fatal to Minnesota school voucher bill @ 3/30/05

COLUMN -- Objective look taken at vaccines, autism @ 3/16/05

COLUMN -- Behind the curtain of 'casino theater' @3/9/05

COLUMN -- These crusaders for liberties battle the status quo @ 3/2/05

COLUMN -- School Vouchers: Constitutionality is a false issue @ 2/23/05

COLUMN -- Vouchers throw light on public education @ 2/16/2005

COLUMN -- Mercury/vaccine bill would provide 'firewall protection' @2/09/2005

COLUMN -- Canadian health care is a 'paper tiger' @2/02/2005

COLUMN -- Smoking ban debate is about personal liberty @1/26/2005

COLUMN -- Legislature will OK funding for Great Pyramid @1/12/2005

COLUMN -- School choice enhances public education @ 1/05/2005

COLUMN -- Government's fiscal landscape different @ 12/29/2004

COLUMN -- Public Education: Is it about the system or the kids? @ 12/22/2004

COLUMN -- Smoking ban will crimp charitable gambling @ 12/15/2004

COLUMN -- Some spending hikes need no apology @ 12/08/2004

COLUMN -- A challenge to conservativess @ 12/01/2004

COLUMN -- Moral imperative for school choice @ 11/24/2004

COLUMN -- Let's have both sides of ethanol debate @ 11/17/2004

COLUMN -- Governor's Brando impression isn't funny @ 11//10/2004

COLUMN -- Vaccine shortage a symptom of ailing system @ 10/25/2004

COLUMN -- A chance to get education right @10/16/2004

COLUMN -- Planes, trains and forged memos @9/29/2004

COLUMN -- Smoking ban is properly local issue @9/22/2004

COLUMN -- Senate prescription bill a free market placebo @9/22/2004

COLUMN -- The taboo of free market education @9/22/2004

COLUMN -- Secondhand smoke not a “public” health issue @9/22/2004

COLUMN -- American mythology a double-edged sword @ 9/22/2004

COLUMN -- Government obesity is preventable @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Met Council decision inspires imagination @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- The discussion we’re all afraid to have @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- All state agencies not created equal @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Who’ll stop the sunshine? @9/21/2004

COLUMN [Casino Gambling] -- Let me make you an offer you can't refuse @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Government should stay out of marriage question @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Against gaming expansion for the wrong reasons @9/21/2004

Community Columnist Columns

COLUMN -- Island getaway still a chance to kick back, tell lies with the locals @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Now is not the time to turn away from politics @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- What’s important is candidate’s philosophy, not stand on issues @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Want to know a few 'dirty little secrets' about liberty? @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- In a free society, one must defend right to do the wrong thing @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Battle against racism must be won in people's hearts, minds @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- What does it truly mean to be an American? @9/21/2004

COLUMN -- Smoking ban is properly local issue

Pioneer Press
Sep. 22, 2004

Excerpt --

[T]he most important reason to keep smoking policy local is creating local government accountability. If a locally imposed smoking ban damages specific businesses, it is fair and reasonable to expect local taxpayers to compensate those businesses — as they must when government condemns private property for "public benefit."

And smoking bans do adversely affect certain types of bar and restaurant businesses. . . .

. . . In jurisdictions with smoking bans, small taverns and restaurants have seen their revenue decline 25 to 80 percent. Fewer customers spend less time ordering fewer drinks and less food. Many small businesses have closed their doors.

Read the column . . . .

PREVIOUSLY IN THE PIONEER PRESS

Editorial — Taking a step back on public health
www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9494989.htm

Westover — Secondhand smoke not a "public" health issue
www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9546688.htm

Editorial — State must bring some uniformity to smoking bans
www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9672821.htm

NEWSLETTER -- Number 4, September 15, 2004

The Portable Craig Westover
Number 4, September 15, 2004

LATEST COLUMN -- SENATE PRESCRIPTION BILL A FREE MARKET PLACEBO

While liberals clamor for legislation that would allow reimporting less expensive prescription drugs into the United States as an applause line in front of senior citizens, conservatives and libertarians are divided on the issue. In my Pioneer Press Column of September 15, the reasons for that split are examined, Senate bill 2328 is exposed as a slick way to import foreign price controls, and an alternative reciprocation approach is examined that is “the free market at its best.”

From the column -- “Maintaining the ban that prohibits Americans from purchasing less expensive prescription drugs from foreign countries is politically unsustainable. Eliminating the prescription drug reimportation ban is the right thing to do politically and pragmatically. However, it must be done in a way that will not create de facto price controls that curtail research and development of life-saving medicines.”

Pioneer Press institutional editorials on prescription drug reimportation --

Push Congress to pass reimportation bill

A good solution in the absence of free market


KUDOS -- TABOO OF FREE MARKET EDUCATION

From the bloggers at Fraters Libertas --

On Wednesday [September 8], there was also a great piece from new Pioneer Press contributor Craig Westover on education.

Excerpt:

Government's education monopoly limits diversity of curriculum, teaching methods and the invisible hand of innovation that ultimately evolves more effective ways of educating children - evaluated by their parents, not some arbitrarily defined measurement ritual.
Perhaps it's time for Minnesota to stop trying to improve the doll and take a good hard look at the ritual belief that only the high priests of government education can create a viable school system. Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at providing parents the opportunity to send their children to schools of their choice without financial penalty.

Perhaps it's time to liberate the taboo topic of free-market education.

[New Pioneer Press editorial board member Mark ] Yost and Westover, a nice one-two conservative punch, the likes of which this town has never seen before in a local paper. They keep this up and we may just have to start the campaign for conservatives to abandon their Star Tribune subscriptions for the Pioneer Press.


FEEDBACK ENCOURAGED

Thanks for reading and whether you agree or disagree, your feedback is appreciated and encouraged. So are gripes and issues that you feel aren’t being addressed by local media -- just keep it civil. Email to westover4@yahoo.com, or if you’re so inclined, drop an email to the Pioneer Press and express you own opinion (letters@pioneerpress.com). Even if your letter isn’t published, it makes an impression.

COLUMN -- Senate prescription bill a free market placebo

Pioneer Press
Sep. 15, 2004

Excerpt --

Maintaining the ban that prohibits Americans from purchasing less expensive prescription drugs from foreign countries is politically unsustainable. Eliminating the prescription drug reimportation ban is the right thing to do politically and pragmatically. However, it must be done in a way that will not create de facto price controls that curtail research and development of life-saving medicines. . . .

. . . Bottom line, the Senate should reject S.2328 and create a bill in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Gutknecht bill [the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003]. A simple and effective solution that lifts the reimportation ban and supports minimal federal interference in the market. The free market at its best.

Read the column . . . .

Pioneer Press institutional editorials on prescription drug reimportation --

Push Congress to pass reimportation bill

A good solution in the absence of free market

COLUMN -- The taboo of free market education

Pioneer Press
Sep. 08, 2004

Government measuring performance of public schools is a lot like pushing pins into a voodoo doll — mutilating the doll has no effect on the object of its malevolence, but the pin-pushers believe that it does. When a voodoo priest fails to inflict his will, blame is placed on inadequacy of the doll. Questioning the ritual remains taboo.

While ostensibly improving the quality of student learning, state and federal high priests of education appear more concerned with the image of the measurement and analysis "doll" than with actually educating children. Recent efforts at grading schools by government standards pokes a few more holes in the superstition that grading, managing and evolving education is best left to government bureaucrats and the education elite.

When the Department of Education declared 472 Minnesota schools, including consistently high-performing suburban schools, "under performing" relative to standards of the No Child Left Behind Act, suburban angst and outrage was the day's assignment.

"Everybody's set up to fail here eventually [by the measurement system]," lamented one suburban superintendent. "It's just a travesty."

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Education Commissioner Alice Seagren were quick to point out that "failure" to meet the government "adequate yearly progress" standard doesn't mean that a school should be considered "failing."

These opinion pages declared the Education Department list of underperforming schools shows "need for tweaking the requirements" of NCLB and urged that more flexibility be worked into the law.

Like the voodoo priest, these statements conclude something is wrong with the "doll." They dare not question the ritual assumptions that 1) government (not parents) is the proper entity to determine what constitutes adequate school performance and 2) parents' role is cheerleading for the government, holding schools accountable to meet government (not their own) requirements.

When the American Federation of Teachers issued an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress that "proves" students in publicly chartered schools "lag behind" students in traditional public schools, charter supporters charged the AFT with skewing the data for political purposes. They countered with their own analysis and pointed to charter popularity as evidence of success.

Traditional public school supporters returned fire with the conclusion that without strict accountability to government and oversight by government, it is inadvisable and even dangerous to allow responsibility for education to fall to the private sector. A happy parent, noted one charter critic, doesn't always lead to an educated child — as if a happy bureaucrat always does.

These opinion pages, which have long championed the charter school movement, noted that NCLB requires that public schools that do not show academic progress be converted to charter schools. Conclusion: That many of today's charter schools are not an academic panacea "is a topic that merits deeper exploration by education officials."

So, what's a parent to do?

Well, the governor urges parents with kids at underperforming schools not to "freak out and overreact." That's pretty good advice. After all, given the current government monopoly school system, there's not much else a parent can do.

The current government education monopoly financially penalizes families (especially less affluent families) that desire to put their children in private schools with the double whammy of tax dollars for public schools and private school tuition.

Government's stranglehold on education eliminates market incentive for development of neighborhood private schools catering to the educational desires and standards of individual communities.

Government control of schools limits parental involvement by discouraging the ability to lobby for meaningful change outside the rigid parameters of government-imposed standards.
Government's education monopoly limits diversity of curriculum, teaching methods and the invisible hand of innovation that ultimately evolves more effective ways of educating children — evaluated by their parents, not some arbitrarily defined measurement ritual.

Perhaps it's time for Minnesota to stop trying to improve the doll and take a good hard look at the ritual belief that only the high priests of government education can create a viable school system. Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at providing parents the opportunity to send their children to schools of their choice without financial penalty.

Perhaps it's time to liberate the taboo topic of free-market education.

EDUCATION

Previous Pioneer Press columns and editorials on NCLB and government evaluation of Minnesota schools:

Editorial: "Fix Schools that get poor 'report cards'" www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9475923.htm

Editorial: "Charter schools provide needed choice" www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9434625.htm

Editorial: "Underperforming schools list shows need for tweaks" www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9516917.htm

Pro/Con: "Are charter schools a sound educational alternative?" Yes — Analysis of recent data is flawed www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9454933.htm

No — Public education should not be at the mercy of the free market www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/9454932.htm

NEWSLETTER -- Number 3, September 1, 2004

The Portable Craig Westover
Number 3, September 1, 2004

LATEST COLUMN -- “SECONDHAND SMOKE NOT A “PUBLIC“ HEALTH ISSUE”

The issue of government imposed bar and restaurant smoking bans continues to be played as a statewide “public” health issue. That argument is wrong on both counts. My column “Secondhand smoke not a “public” health issue” (September 1, 2004) in the Pioneer Press explains why and also offers a solution to resolve the conflict between the public health and private property sides of the argument.

From the column -- “It is unjust for government to arbitrarily change established conditions in the marketplace without compensating private businesses for losses they might suffer because of such changes. If "the public" benefits from dictating a change in long-established codes governing the ways a person may use his or her private property, then "the public" should justly compensate the individual property owner for any losses incurred by that change.
“(Would public officials be so quick to impose their prejudices if their constituents had to foot the bill?)”

The smoking ban debate is symptomatic of government overreaching it‘s authority to regulate its citizens. This notion is discussed in these Pioneer Press columns.

Who’ll stop the sunshine?

Government obesity is preventable

IN THE NEWS -- “TRIBE PUTS CASINO OFFER ON THE TABLE”

Startribune.com (August 27) reported that the head of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, seeking to chart "a new course" in the sometimes prickly relations between casino-rich American Indian tribes and the rest of Minnesota, has proposed wide-ranging negotiations with the state of Minnesota that could lead to tribal contributions to charity, state government and even pro sports stadiums. Gov. Pawlenty has said that Minnesota tribes should be contributing more to state coffers. He already has scheduled sessions with some tribes in search of "financial contributions to the state in exchange for things that will benefit the tribes." If no accord is reached, he added, he would welcome "other parties" to share gambling proceeds in Minnesota.

In an OP-ED piece published in the Pioneer Press (January 2, 04) I take the position that issues surrounding casino gambling should not be resolved by how passionately one feels, pro or con, about the morality of gambling. Gambling expansion is a free market issue. Expanding gambling via private casino development is a legitimate debate; construction of a state-owned casino (or special deals with tribal concerns that funnel additional funds to the state) is not.

From that column -- “The state should not go into competition with citizens who pay taxes that the state then uses to operate a business that competes with those same taxpayers for customers . . . Entertainment dollars spent at a state-owned casino are entertainment dollars not spent at privately owned restaurants, movie theaters, bowling alleys and sports stadiums. These and similar businesses are certainly in competition with each other — and with Indian casinos — but none has the state's ability to tax its competitors, regulate its competitors or relax regulations on its own operations . . . The state owning a casino is little different from the state opening a department store at the Mall of America that didn't charge sales tax and didn't pay state income tax and consequently lured customers with prices well below those of private sector competitors.”

The Pioneer Press (August 27) leads its story with “The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, under pressure from Gov. Tim Pawlenty to share its casino profits with the state, said Thursday it wants to discuss new joint ventures that could include financing a Twins or Vikings stadium.” In “Let me make you an offer you can’t refuse” (Pioneer Press 17 Feb, 04), I speculate on a meeting between Gov. Pawlenty and John McCarthy, executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association.

From the column -- “The brook running through the Minnehaha Café at Mystic Lake Casino babbled like Red McCombs on the need for football stadium funding as the waitress brought John McCarthy his charbroiled burger and fries. At the same moment, two men — both wearing heavy trench coats and fedoras angled across their foreheads — approached the table. The smaller of the two slid into the chair across from McCarthy, removed his fedora and set it next to an empty plate. McCarthy recognized the man they call ‘the Governor.’”

CHENEY: “FREEDOM MEANS FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE”

In my column in the Pioneer Press last week (August 26, 2004), “American mythology a double-edged sword,” I used he occasion of President Bush’s President Bush’s town hall meeting in Hudson, Wisconsin, to note that conservatives are at a crossroad -- that “they can protect their values through the force of government — or they can preserve them by ensuring protection from government for the values of all.” In an OP-ED piece in the Pioneer Press (August, 31, 2004), Leonard Pitts, a columnist for the “Miami Herald,” issues a more subtle but similar challenge to Republicans, occasioned by Vice-President Dick Cheney’s remarks in Davenport, Iowa, in which he expressed is opinion that the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states.

From the Pitts’ column -- "Freedom means freedom for everyone," said Cheney . . .
Which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse. But if every conservative home is going to have to have a lesbian daughter before we can accept it, then freedom will be waiting a very long time.

In a previous column in the Pioneer Press (January 18, 2004), “Government should stay out of marriage question,” I make the case that instead of a constitutional amendment diluting sacramental "marriage" with a watered-down legal definition, Minnesota and individual liberty would be better served by a new definition of "civil union," which applies to all couples regardless of sexual orientation.

From the column -- “I would urge those with moral objections to 'civil unions' to step back for a moment and separate the properly private and properly legal aspects of the debate. The proper question is not, 'Do gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples?' The proper question is, 'Does government have the legitimate authority to deny gay couples the legal rights granted to heterosexual couples?'“

COLUMN -- Secondhand smoke not a “public” health issue

Pioneer Press
Sep. 01, 2004

No issue is too trivial to teach an important lesson. The smoking ban debate provides a teachable moment.

Despite typographically stamping their feet ("It's a public health issue. It's a public health issue. It's a public health issue."), writers lamenting lack of a statewide bar and restaurant smoking ban and Dakota County's failure to pass a local smoking ban are wrong on all counts.

Yes, smoking and secondhand smoke pose a health threat. A wayward whiff of secondhand smoke is no reason to go "Chicken Little," and statistics attributing death and illness to secondhand smoke proceed more from political agenda than scientific rigor, but it's tough to deny that a room engulfed in the blue haze of cigarette smoke is not hazardous to a person's health.

Nonetheless, a bar and restaurant smoking ban, statewide or local, doesn't pass the test of a public health problem requiring government intervention. Public health/government intervention is at issue only when people are exposed to risks to which they have not consented and which pose dangers to the community at large from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves.

No one is forced to patronize or seek employment at a smoking establishment. Diseases caused by cigarette smoke are not contagious, so there's no risk to the community. It's easy for individuals to protect themselves from the danger of secondhand smoke — don't patronize or seek employment at smoking establishments.

Moreover, the argument in favor of a statewide bar and restaurant smoking ban contradicts the concept of "federalism" — the checks-and-balances system among federal, state and local governments. Holding "Big Al's Bait and Grill" located by a snowmobile trail through Muskee Cheek to the same smoking ordinance as "Liberal Libations" just off the light-rail line in the heart of the "sustainable urban environment" abolishes any illusion of local community control.

Ironically, however, therein lies the proper path for the smoking ban folks.

Stripped of their fallacious public health scrubs, smoking ban proponents are nonetheless within their legal right to don a crown and elect a city council or county board that will autocratically impose their prejudices "just because it can."

Smoking is not an unalienable right. And for smokers under siege, like nonsmokers in the current environment, there are alternatives: Patronize establishments in nearby communities without a smoking ban; elect a local government that does not support a smoking ban.

But before dousing the smoking lamp, smoking ban proponents should consider this: Because a government-imposed smoking ban on private business is not a public health crisis, merely a majority whim, government, acting on behalf of "the public," has certain obligations to those affected by such an ordinance.

It is unjust for government to arbitrarily change established conditions in the marketplace without compensating private businesses for losses they might suffer because of such changes. If "the public" benefits from dictating a change in long-established codes governing the ways a person may use his or her private property, then "the public" should justly compensate the individual property owner for any losses incurred by that change.

(Would public officials be so quick to impose their prejudices if their constituents had to foot the bill?)

A legitimate local ordinance might ban smoking in all new establishments, and require that when an existing bar or restaurant is sold to new ownership, it is required to go smoke-free. But, when a bar or restaurant is sold, the local government then assumes an obligation to pay the seller the fair market difference between the sale price as a smoke-free establishment and a smoking establishment.

If ban supporters are correct, entrepreneurs will be anxious to open smoke-free establishments. If smoking ban proponents are correct that smoking bans produce no dire consequences, there is virtually no financial risk to taxpayers. If they are right.

If smoking ban proponents have the courage they claim government lacks, they will "do the right thing" and abandon the excessive call for statewide smoking ban legislation and insist upon compensation to private business owners for any effects of local smoking ban ordinances.

Then we'll see who learns a lesson.

NANNY STATE POLITICS

Previous columns by Craig Westover on government overreach:

Who'll stop the sunshine?

Government obesity is preventable

NEWSLETTER -- Number 2, August 26, 2004

The Portable Craig Westover
Number 2, August 26, 2004

LATEST COLUMN -- AMERICAN MYTHOLOGY A DOUBLE -EDGED SWORD

President Bush’s town hall meeting in Hudson, Wisconsin, on August 18 drew a Rockwellesque crowd to the banks of the St. Croix River to celebrate the best of America’s traditional values. That’s the good news. The troubling reality is that America today is not a picture perfect Rockwell vision. And that presents a very real challenge for conservatives. “American mythology a double-edged sword” from the Wednesday (August 26, 2004) Pioneer Press defines that challenge.

From the column -- “Conservatives are at a crossroad. They can be the narrow and exclusive party their opponents paint them — or they can accept that the American palette creates many possible pictures. They can protect their values through the force of government — or they can preserve them by ensuring protection from government for the values of all. Out of fear, conservatives can betray the American myth — or with courage they can honor their heritage and defend it.”

IN THE NEWS -- ACTIVISTS HIT STREETS, FESTS

An article in the Sunday, August 22 Pioneer Press describes the actions of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups in their “unending abortion battle” to mobilizing for the presidential race. Both sides know the next president likely will appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who will be the ultimate arbiters of the abortion deadlock. Although abortion is ultimately a moral decision for an individual, moral decisions are not necessarily a proper province of government. This position is discussed in my Pioneer Press column “In a free society, one must defend the right to do wrong” (May 26, 2002).

From that column -- “It is far more dangerous to our existence as a free people to expand the powers of government than it is to legislatively prohibit individuals from misusing their freedom to make bad decisions. On moral issues, free people may do what they can to change other people's minds — they have no right to use the power of government to make up their minds for them.”

COLUMN -- American mythology a double-edged sword

Pioneer Press
Aug. 25, 2004

Unlike the chilly wind of early morn that sent ominous clouds scuttling across a leaden sky, the mid-afternoon breeze blowing off the St. Croix River, sparkling in the sunlight, brushed a picture perfect setting for the arrival of President Bush in Hudson, Wis., last week. Gazing at the large raptors soaring above the Republican faithful (discounting the possibility they were turkey vultures), one imagined them eagles.

"If Norman Rockwell were to paint a picture of America today," extolled Wisconsin Rep. Kitty Rhoades, extending her arms toward the crowd, "this is what he would paint — my hometown."

Indeed, the faces that awaited Bush would not be out of place in a Rockwell painting — sitting down at Thanksgiving dinner, exercising the freedom to speak, bowing in worship or tucking their children into bed. Scouts that might have leaped from "I Will Do My Best" mingled with veterans right out of "War Stories." The rally was a family affair — "Old Glory" come to life.

It was a gathering of the keepers of American mythology.

"Myth" is misdefined by those who equate it with "falsehood." Actually, a myth is a means to greater truth that expands beyond mere fact. In professorial-speak, myths reveal the underlying meaning of universal concerns of all human beings.

American mythology, specifically, inspires significance, meaning and purpose in our existence as a nation. In plain-speak, our myths make us who we are.

It’s the heritage of American mythology contrasts the president's message, eagerly awaited by the crowd in Hudson, with the spiritually devoid and foreign message that government "help is on the way."

American mythology looks beyond the surmountable failures of a fallible mankind to a vision of an America where one can overcome the risk of failure, acquire freedom, self-esteem and even riches through one's own efforts without depriving others of the same. The alternative foreign message obsesses on the inevitability of human failure and teaches that one can feel free only by diminishing the liberty of others, gain self-esteem only by reducing others and feel rich only when others are poor.

But mythology is a double-edged sword that in the wrong hands can as easily self-inflict a wound as can a misplaced mortar round. Warns one writer, when "we're so engaged in doing things to achieve purposes of outer value, we (can) forget that inner value … is what it's all about."

And therein lies the challenge for conservative "keepers of American mythology."

In many ways, America jars in dissonance with the Rockwellesque gathering on the banks of the St. Croix River. In families across the land, it's not just white faces around the Thanksgiving table. Some people speak on behalf of causes that conservatives find morally reprehensible. Some choose not to worship.

Parents tucking in their children at night might be of the same gender. The war on terror is unlike any war we've ever waged.

Nonetheless, conservative entrenchment to protect comfortable "traditional" outer values is as dangerous to American mythology as open attacks on those self-same beliefs. The American myth is not just about the outer values that create happiness for denizens of the St. Croix Valley; it is about the inner values of freedom and liberty that enable the pursuit of happiness by all.

The American myth yields more than two-parent, two-gender, one-race families; it is the freedom to pursue the universal joy found in family whatever form a family might take. It does not coerce "moral" choice through the force of government; it recognizes the freedom to make bad choices, trusting that God, not government, can best judge those choices. It does not merely welcome the participation of all in America's abundance; it seeks and invites them.

Conservatives are at a crossroad. They can be the narrow and exclusive party their opponents paint them — or they can accept that the American palette creates many possible pictures. They can protect their values through the force of government — or they can preserve them by ensuring protection from government for the values of all. Out of fear, conservatives can betray the American myth — or with courage they can honor their heritage and defend it.

An election — and possibly the fate of American mythology — hangs in the balance.

NEWSLETTER -- Number 1, August 19, 2004

The Portable Craig Westover
Number 1, August 19, 2004

FATTER GOVERNMENT DOESN’T MAKE FOR THINNER MINNESOTANS

According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Minnesota Health Department is planning to hire a “obesity prevention coordinator. Making a fiscal argument, the an editorial on the subject declared that “hiring of a Health obesity coordinator can push the state in the right direction [on obesity].”

My August 18 column in the Pioneer Press, “Government obesity is preventable,” I make the point that before one swallows the fiscal argument, one should examine the ingredients of that claim -- specifically the progressive fallacy that everyone is somehow responsible for everyone else’s eating habits. Making obesity a public health problem will not render Minnesotans fat free, only less free.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9425333.htm

A related theme is found in “Who’ll stop the sunshine,” a parody of smoking ban advocates, published in the Pioneer Press July 21.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9199918.htm

MET COUNCIL AUTHORITY GOES TOO FAR --- AGAIN

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently affirmed the authority of the Metropolitan Council to make communities, like maverick Lake Elmo, conform to the Council’s regional development plan, regardless of a community’s own ideas about its character and vision of the future.

In my August 12 column, I wrote that confirmation of the Met Council’s authority to mandate adherence to a central regional plan makes individuals the means to the Council’s ends. The freedom to choose an individual lifestyle must now be sacrificed to achieve “smart growth.” And the truly sad part is that good people who support the Met Council position really believe that coercion for the common good is somehow a middle ground between totalitarianism and freedom.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9375183.htm

Thanks for reading and whether you agree or disagree with me, I appreciate your feedback. Email me at westover4@yahoo.com, or if you’re so inclined, drop an email to the Pioneer Press and express you own opinion (http://us.f135.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?&To=letters@pioneerpress.com). I know from experience that even if your letter isn’t published, it makes an impression. Also, let me know if there are others you’d like to add to this list.

Best --

Craig Westover
westover4@yahoo.com

COLUMN -- Government obesity is preventable

Pioneer Press
Aug. 18, 2004

The super-size government folks are taking yet another bite of individual responsibility, this time gnawing accountability for personal health away from individual Minnesotans and force-feeding it whole to the public. Serving up obesity as a "public health" entrée, garnishing the Health Department with an "obesity prevention coordinator" and cooking up a new batch of obesity-prevention programs virtually guarantees weight loss — for taxpayer wallets.

Here's some food for thought — a simmering widespread health concern, like obesity, is not automatically a "public health" problem that will boil over unless government puts a lid on it.

Main course "public health" is government activity that protects citizens from risks to which they have not consented — dangers posed to the community at large, dangers from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves. The legitimate menu of public health includes ensuring clean air and water, maintaining adequate sanitation and controlling contagious diseases.

And at that, government gets a four-star rating.

Absent from the buffet of fear spread by the "help is on the way" crowd are real killers like tuberculosis, cholera, typhoid fever, measles and smallpox.

Infectious diseases and diseases attributable to poor sanitation and water quality kill millions around the world but are virtually nonexistent in the United States. Such success illustrates the good government does when it follows the constitutional recipe of limited focus.

Unfortunately, having a clean plate is not a virtue at the government trough. "Progressive" government lacks the discipline to push away from the budgetary table as long as there's a smidgen of tax-dollar gravy still to be sopped up. Better yet — mandate gravy as a beverage by relabeling old problems as new "crises."

Thus the limited portion government that produced such spectacular fare as eradicating killer diseases has been supplanted by an "all-you-can-eat" smorgasbord of behavior modifying communications and regulatory programs that equate a Big Mac and a 64-ounce "Bladder Buster" with the Ebola virus.

Obesity is not caused by polluted air, dirty water or inadequate sanitation. It is not contagious. No individual person's obesity reduces any other person's health. Individual health is not public property or public responsibility.

"Ah, but it is," burp they who digest people and poop statistics. Minnesota and Wisconsin spend more than a billion dollars each to treat obesity-related medical conditions. So, they say, it just makes fiscal sense for more government bureaucracy to push citizens in the "right" direction.

But not if you examine the ingredients of that claim.

The meat and potatoes of the fiscal argument is the progressive fallacy that everyone is somehow responsible for everyone else's eating and exercise habits, which in turn promotes the notion that government intervention is the only possible solution.

If I'm told that despite all the 6 a.m. trips to the gym and a refrigerator full of carrot juice, I must pay for the consequences of my couch-potato neighbor's beer and bratwurst breakfasts, then any government intervention in his habits starts to look pretty good.

In that light, a government diet that bans vending machines from schools, implements "fat taxes" on high caloric foods and uses the threat of regulation to coerce "Big Food" into more "acceptable" marketing behavior smells less like tyranny and more like nutritious public policy. And if government is picking up the tab for blood-pressure pills, praise the Lord and pass the onion rings. Who would pass on a free piece of the pie?

Chew on this before swallowing the fiscal argument.

Government's effectiveness in this food fight lays in promoting personal responsibility, not slipping it under the table to the salivating dogs of progressivism.

That means just saying "no" to efforts to make individual health a public health concern. It means enabling, not restricting, insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles and penalize poor ones. It means moving forward on medical and health savings accounts that give individuals control of their health insurance and health care choices. When it's one's own money being consumed for health care, not the government's, not the employer's and not the neighbor's, one is less likely to drive to the doctor for a Jenny Craig prescription and more likely to eat well and exercise.

Making obesity a public health problem will not render Minnesotans fat free, only less free.

COLUMN -- Met Council decision inspires imagination

Pioneer Press
Aug. 12, 2004

Excerpt --

In the eyes of progressives, the question is no longer how we maintain a functioning region of diverse communities. The question now is what is the most effective way to homogenize the metro region into a single "community"? The freedom to choose an individual lifestyle must be sacrificed to achieve the greater vision of "smart growth." People are the means, not the end of that process.

And the truly sad part is that good people who support the Met Council on this issue — people who would recoil in horror at the notion of a Soviet-like central planning bureaucracy — nonetheless believe that coercion for the common good is somehow a middle ground between totalitarianism and freedom. These people fail to understand that government planning and individual freedom can be combined only when government plans how best to preserve freedom, not how most effectively to coerce a noble result.

Read the column . . . .

COLUMN -- The discussion we’re all afraid to have

Pioneer Press
Aug. 05, 2004

Excerpt --

My first thought was "Springtime for Hitler." OK, Springtime was a fictional success that "The Producers," Bialystock and Bloom, intended to be a flop, but in real life its title song did make a Top 100 list of great movie musical numbers.

So maybe, just maybe, local playwright John Davidson and producer Myron Odegaard could pull off a self-billed "musical tragedy" about the 1920 Duluth lynching of three black circus workers for the fabricated rape of a white woman.

Or not.

Read the column . . . .

RELATED COLUMN(S) -- Battle against racism must be won in people's hearts, minds

COLUMN -- All state agencies not created equal

Pioneer Press
Jul. 29, 2004

Excerpt --

Public defenders are NOT equivalent to a bonding bill, a ballpark and other subjectively "crucial" state spending. Cutting public defenders is not simply another "draconian" cut, with "dire" consequences affecting our "most vulnerable" citizens. Adequately funding public defenders is not about saving the jobs of state employees, righteously protecting poor Minnesotans or redistributing tax dollars throughout the state.

The state criminal justice system is a constitutional function of government. Equality before the law is the heart of the social contract between citizens and government. Its preservation is a duty of government (not a source of revenue) and an obligation to its citizens. And the difference between discretionary government action — however well-intentioned — and government fulfilling its constitutional obligations is significant.

Appropriating human and economic resources for things government COULD do prevents government from focusing on the things that it SHOULD do — adequately funding public defenders being on the "should do" list.

Read the column . . . .

COLUMN -- Who’ll stop the sunshine?

Pioneer Press
Jul. 21, 2004

Excerpt --

Attending the Taste of Minnesota over the Fourth of July weekend, I was horrified to find not a single designated "non-sunshine area" anywhere on Harriet Island. Promoters of the "Taste" callously ignored the conclusive scientific evidence of the health hazards of exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays — and the St. Paul City Council did nothing to stop them!. . . . In order to purchase food at the Taste, I often had to stand in line, out in the open, unprotected from the sun. Tents and awnings sometimes provided a little cover from direct sunlight exposure, but offered no protection from the hazardous glare of "secondhand sunshine."

Read the Column . . . .

COLUMN [Casino Gambling] -- Let me make you an offer you can't refuse

Pioneer Press
Feb. 17, 2004

Excerpt --

The brook running through the Minnehaha Café at Mystic Lake Casino babbled like Red McCombs on the need for football stadium funding as the waitress brought John McCarthy his charbroiled burger and fries. At the same moment, two men — both wearing heavy trench coats and fedoras angled across their foreheads — approached the table. The smaller of the two slid into the chair across from McCarthy, removed his fedora and set it next to an empty plate. McCarthy recognized the man they call "the Governor."

Read the column . . . .

RELATED COLUMN(S) -- Against gaming expansion for the wrong reasons

COLUMN -- Government should stay out of marriage question

Pioneer Press
Jan. 18, 2004

I have a great deal of respect for state Sen. Michele Bachmann. Her tireless efforts in education reform and holding the line on the state budget are admirable. So it is very respectfully, but very adamantly, that I disagree with her proposal to place before voters an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that essentially denies "gay marriage."

I do not make this argument as a supporter of gay marriage, but rather as an ardent advocate of individual liberty. One has a far better chance to live by conservative principles if government has only limited powers to interfere with private life — even if limited government means enabling others to live lifestyles a conservative might not agree with. I agree with Sen. Bachmann that "marriage" should not be redefined; but perhaps it is time to define "civil union."

"Marriage" is a sacrament and a religious institution. Tracing the descent of marriage in legal terms, the concept was first usurped by secular government as a convenient means for ordering legal activities such as inheritance rights, legal titles, defining certain benefits and determining certain legal obligations. Nonetheless, at its heart, "marriage" is a religious function and ought to remain that.

In other words, "marriage" is whatever a church and its parishioners define it to be (based, a conservative hopes, on scriptural authority). That is none of the state's business, my business or Bachmann's. A religious ceremony should not confer any legal rights whatsoever.

The state, for example, does not offer special legal privileges to those who are baptized, neither does a Bar Mitzvah confer the legal right to vote and order alcohol.

Instead of a constitutional amendment diluting sacramental "marriage" with a watered-down legal definition, Minnesota and individual liberty would be better served by a new definition of "civil union," which applies to all couples.

Instead of a secular marriage license (which is little more than yet another excuse for the state to collect a fee without providing a needed service), why not a "civil union" license with teeth. A civil union license, which must be signed by every couple desiring to have its relationship recognized by the state (regardless of religious standing), would be backed by legislation that defined all legal benefits, rights and obligations of the union.

In essence, a civil union would be a binding contract between partners in the union and between the partners and the state. The couple could modify the standard document — as marriage can be modified by a prenuptial agreement — but in absence of such modification, the legislatively determined "civil union" is the controlling authority.

This approach preserves the sanctity of traditional marriage while acknowledging the individual rights of all people to form lasting personal relationships subject to state laws.

One final point: The notion that the question of "gay marriage" is subject to majority rule is wrong. A basic American premise is that the majority cannot deny unalienable rights to minorities, and choosing a life partner is indeed an unalienable right. Banning gay marriage is the same level of government intrusion as the state legislating the number of children a couple may have based on government's judgment of the couple's ability to support them.

Liberty involves risk. One's ability to live life as he or she chooses is best served by ensuring that government cannot interfere in private decisions — even if that means enabling others to live their lives in a manner that one may or may not agree with or even regard as morally correct.

I would urge those with moral objections to "civil unions" to step back for a moment and separate the properly private and properly legal aspects of the debate. The proper question is not, "Do gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples?" The proper question is, "Does government have the legitimate authority to deny gay couples the legal rights granted to heterosexual couples?" To the proper question I say that although a tyrannical majority may usurp government power to deny such rights, it certainly does not have legitimate moral authority to do so.

COLUMN -- Against gaming expansion for the wrong reasons

Pioneer Press
Jan. 02, 2004

Excerpt --

The crux of the state-owned casino issue, however, is not how passionately pro or con one feels about expansion of gaming in Minnesota. It is a free-market issue. It is understanding the very limited legitimate role of state government in a free market, which is an issue with much broader application and implication than merely casino gambling.

Read the column . . . .

Related Column(s) -- [Casino Gambling] -- Let me make you an offer you can't refuse

COLUMN -- Island getaway still a chance to kick back, tell lies with the locals

Pioneer Press
Jan. 05, 2003

Excerpt --

I don't spear fish and lobster or dive for conch as well as I once did, nor half as well as my teenage son does, but youthful hubris has been replaced by a fatherly pride watching him dive. The conch are not as big as they once were, but it's not the size of your conch that counts, but whether or not you still enjoy diving.

I no longer press up and over the side into a boat — I swim to the stern and climb the ladder. I can afford both the indignity of the climb and the cost to rent a boat with a ladder.

For this aging traveler Hope Town is a metaphor on a myth. It's a testament to man's irrepressible drive to improve his lot, even in paradise — and yet, it's still a place where an old man can sit by the sea, drink a little beer and tell a few lies, and nostalgically "dream of young lions roaring on the beach."

Read the column . . . .

COLUMN -- Now is not the time to turn away from politics

Pioneer Press
Nov. 10, 2002

Excerpt --

It is a paradox of democracy that during campaigns, politicians flatter us with the virtue of wisdom, but after elections they denigrate the wisdom of the daily decisions we make.

Read the column . . . .

COLUMN -- What’s important is candidate’s philosophy, not stand on issues

Pioneer Press
Sep. 15, 2002

Knowledge of where a political candidate stands on "the issues" is like knowledge one is incontinent.

In terms of benefit, both are relatively useless pieces of information. Knowledge of a candidate's position provides rationale for a vote but doesn't prevent one from "wetting" himself.

Take those stained by support for the likes of Nixon, Clinton or Ventura. Despite ever-present mudslinging, modern political campaigns do not lack for discussion of the issues; however, they are completely devoid of political thought. What passes for "political thought" is simply pedantic party propaganda without context, substance or philosophical grounding.

Gone are the great substantive debates on the nature and just function of government.

Come campaign season, we voters are subjected to political pornography appealing to our prurient interest in "hot" issues that lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Issues are but the beat for the bump-and-grind stump speeches of gyrating campaigners more concerned with the style of the dancing than the nature of the dance.

Minnesota's four major parties fall into three definable issue positions lying along the conventional left-to-right political spectrum.

At the two extremes are the liberal left and the conservative right, represented on the left by the Green Party and the majority of Democrats and on the right by traditional Republicans. Extreme party positions ostensibly derive from core principles — although it is serendipitous indeed how often political "principles" confirm a politician's personal prejudices.

Extreme parties seize issues that are more naturally matters of individual concern and generalize them into a collective "crisis" requiring immediate legislative interference — action less intended to solve "problems" than to increase party power. Their constituents need not ask what their country can do for them; extreme party candidates make their constituents a plethora of offers they cannot refuse — all at the expense of others.

Contrasted with the two extremes is the "centrist" position defined by the Independence Party, "common-sense" Democrats and "moderate" Republicans.

The centrist position has no latitude and longitude of principle, but shifts and slides along the political spectrum with the "will of the electorate."

Centrists offer no new thought, simply co-opting the most personally palatable and popular positions from both the right or the left, lacing them with a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

Gov. Jesse Ventura is the centrist poster boy. Based "on his keen understanding of what the people want," Ventura makes a stand today, but provides no principles that indicate where he might stand tomorrow. Consistency of principle is less than a priority.

The point is this: positions on issues do not necessarily reveal a candidate's philosophy on the most fundamental of all political questions — "to what extent should government control the lives of its citizens?"

Voters should not allow candidates to get away with merely "sticking to the issues."

The question that should be put to every candidate at every opportunity and against which his every stated issue position should be judged is simply this — "Which of the following is the primary factor determining your position?"

a) The desire of the majority of your constituents.

b) Your personal convictions.

c) The visible benefits of the policy.

d) The constitutional authority of government to be involved.

"A" is the answer of the politician who only tells you what you want to hear — provided you are in the majority.

"B" is the answer of the activist who goes into politics to implement his vision of the way society should be — implemented with your money and "for your own good."

"C" is the legacy builder's answer. He's very good at pointing to all the "great" things government does with tax dollars — ignoring that the money taken from the people might otherwise be spent on things of their own choosing, creating other benefits to society that are now lost.

"D" is the answer of a statesman. It's the answer of a candidate who understands that government is not instituted to fulfill the majority's desires at the expense of the minority, that it is not a personal vehicle to implement the candidate's vision of the way things ought to be, and it is not instituted to redistribute wealth from some groups to others.

The statesman understands that in a free society the primary function of government is maximizing the liberty of its citizens, not controlling or planning their lives.

Issues may be important to getting elected, but political thought is critical to governing justly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COLUMN -- Want to know a few 'dirty little secrets' about liberty?

Pioneer Press
Jul. 21, 2002

Excerpt --

The liberty commemorated on the Fourth of July does not exclude the offensive, the foolish and the frightening. It is one of liberty's dirty little secrets that individuals carry the obligation to defend personal values. It's an unworthy cowardice that (in the guise of "political correctness") looks to government to eliminate the necessity to defend at risk that which one professes in principle.

Read the column . . . .

COLUMN -- In a free society, one must defend right to do the wrong thing

Pioneer Press
May. 26, 2002


I don't remember if she had the use of her arms, but she was in a wheelchair. I do not remember her face, but I remember thinking she was pretty. She was crying.

It was some years ago when independent living for the disabled was a new idea. On a magazine assignment, I was interviewing the manager of an apartment house built for independent living when the tearful teen-age girl rolled into the alcove where we were sitting.

I remember the newspaper on the tray of her wheelchair. It was folded exposing the bottom of the front page and an article about pre-natal testing for birth defects. I do not remember the headline on the article that made the girl cry. I do remember her tears were angry tears. I remember the sentence that ignited her anger.

"The test reveals birth defects during the first trimester so the abortion alternative can be considered."

I will never forget what she said:

"Who are these people to say I have no right to live?"

On that day the abortion controversy became more than just a newspaper story – more than just a political joust in the state Legislature.

Married, but not yet husband to a pregnant wife and father to an unborn child, I confronted what I would do were I told my child would spend his or her life in a wheelchair or suffer some mental disorder. I found no answer. Spared the question, even today I cannot honestly say how I might have responded. Nonetheless, regardless of my choice, the disabled girl's desire for life made it clear that lack of personal courage to love does not justify denying life to a child.

Abortion may be an agonizing decision, but anguish is not the measure of morality. And while it does not strain the quality of mercy to feel compassion for those who sincerely struggle with the literal life or death decision, compassion does not preclude moral judgment.

For some, abortion is a convenience or a political statement. It is elective surgery morally equivalent to a fanny tuck. The wheelchair-bound girl's question should haunt those who deny individual responsibility, trivialize the value of individual human life and make abortion a collective political cause.

"Who are these people to say I have no right to live?"
But having said all that, neither the false premise of a woman's moral "right to choose" nor the morality-based "right to life" position is the political high ground their legislative proponents make them.

In a free society, choice is not optional. It is demanded. Sometimes people make good choices, sometimes bad. Sometimes moral choices, sometimes immoral ones. The political issue in a free society is not what choice an individual may make, but rather what actions may legislation justly prohibit. Abortion is not one of those actions.

Unlike murder of the birthed, which if ignored by the state would directly affect the security of all, "murder" of the unborn does not directly threaten society at large. On the other hand, legislative fetal protection sets a precedent for intrusive state power affecting every potential parent.

At legislative whim, a pregnant woman's failure to eat her vegetables becomes a crime. Engaging in too much or too little exercise makes her a criminal. One glass of wine a misdemeanor – two glasses a felony.

"Endangering a fetus" becomes as subjectively punishable as political incorrectness.

Far fetched?

A government press release pronounced the Health and Human Services Blueprint for Action on Breast Feeding "a comprehensive breast-feeding policy for the nation." It is not a great leap from a national breast-feeding policy to a national policy on pre-natal care. It is a smaller leap from policy power to police power. For a government with a "womb to tomb" control philosophy, it is but a mere hop to the theme "from conception to resurrection."

In a free society one must often defend the ability of others to do things one finds morally reprehensible.

It is far more dangerous to our existence as a free people to expand the powers of government than it is to legislatively prohibit individuals from misusing their freedom to make bad decisions. On moral issues, free people may do what they can to change other people's minds — they have no right to use the power of government to make up their minds for them.

At times the price of freedom must be paid in angry tears.